游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

来自《刺客信条III》的开放世界任务设计原则

发布时间:2016-08-22 17:09:21 Tags:,,,,

作者:Stanislav Costiuc

当谈论到《刺客信条III》的不同关卡设计时,我总是会有将其写下来的冲动。我认为这款游戏非常适合用于研究开放世界关卡设计的原则,而原因并非它在这方面表现的非常优秀。甚至当你从整体去看待这款游戏时会发现它并非如此。但它的确拥有开放世界任务的一些正面和负面例子,即意味着有关这款游戏的分析内容能够帮助我们更好地学习这方面的内容。

0–只要合理便能够打破规则

在开始前我想要说说我所定义为指导方针的每个学习元素。当然你也可以不去遵循这些内容,只要这对于玩家来说是有意义的即可。所以关于每个原则我将尝试着列举一个相关例子。

1–让玩家能够按照自己的方式到达一个目的地

在一款开放世界游戏中,如果你希望玩家从A点到达B点,你便需要在B点上做个标记并告诉玩家去到达这里(游戏邦注:这便是让游戏世界拥有更多导航可能性)。这看似再明显不过,特别是之前的《刺客信条》游戏已经这么做过了,但是在《刺客信条III》中这种情况并非始终都会出现。

让我们以邦克山战役任务为例,在这里玩家的首要目标便是到达Putnam。玩家需要接近一个可能将自己引向目标的随机陆军,并且除非玩家骑着马,否则该陆军将不会做出任何移动。如果玩家未能遵循这样的条件并尝试着自己到达Putnam,那么这一任务便算失败并且将从某个检查点重新开始。这是非常局限性的设置。如果你希望玩家走进一条特定的线性路线,你就要提供给他们一个经典的线性环境。就像之前游戏的Tomb关卡或《刺客信条III》中的Treasure Map关卡那样。例如Fort Wolcott便是一个线性关卡,同时它也是一个非常有趣的关卡。开放世界环境和局限的线性路线是矛盾的。

ac3(from gamasutra)

ac3(from gamasutra)

而即便如此,邦克山任务也拥有不让玩家按照自己想要的方式行走的理由。我所说的便是出现在玩家和暗杀目标之间的大量英国军队和他们的火线。如果你走得太近便会被他们杀死。而在我几年前所写的有关这一任务的文章中我所提到的则是相反的内容,即玩家应该能够靠近他们并穿越他们。

从技术上来看我认为这是不可能的,因为在这里玩家将需要考虑太多NPC。或许在拥有下一代技术的《刺客信条:大革命》中是可能的,但在使用了许多技巧去呈现大量角色的《刺客信条III》却很难。如果是单纯从玩家角度来看,只身前往一支军队中只会白白送死。

2–让NPC去适应玩家,而不是反过来

在《刺客信条》中,玩家有时候需要走到一个带有友好NPC的场所并与之进行交谈。或者只需要遵循一个NPC到达某个地方。即玩家要么就要寻着NPC的路径,要么就要面对任务失败的结果。一般看来,玩家希望游戏和之前的内容一样拥有一个标记并且设有能够陪伴着玩家去适应自己行为的NPC。

不过也有例外,即当玩家需要前往一些特定场所时,如围绕着大本营的教程之旅。同时如果那是一个对立的NPC,如跟踪目标,玩家就需要适应这是目标组成部分的NPC。

3–可选择的目标应该匹配角色并且不要设定明确的游戏风格

《刺客信条III》拥有所有不同类型的角色。

这里拥有一些毫无意义的抽象角色。就像在Conflict Looms任务中拥有一个可选择目标,即暗杀一艘舰船上的一个投掷兵。在这里一个较棘手的部分便是玩家同时也拥有不被任何人发现的可选择目标。所以为了完成这一目标,玩家需要在设立暗杀任务前清理舰船。但游戏的主要目标要求玩家摧毁舰船,所以不管是避免被发现还是暗杀的约束条件都会让人觉得很抽象。

这里还存在一个与角色相矛盾的内容。即在The Angry Chef任务中玩家必须暗杀低调的5个警卫(非致命的打击是无效的)。同时Connor尝试着在任务中告诉主厨暴力并非解决问题的答案。而这便是两件相互矛盾的事。特别是在《刺客信条》中就更复杂了,因为可选择任务让实现“完全同步”变得合理,如玩家可以按照先人的方式去执行任务。而Connor是以一个伪君子的身份出现的,即那时候他正在反对一些不必要的暴力行为,但游戏中的许多任务的可选择目标中都拥有不必要的暴力。

这里同时也拥有要求玩家基于特定方式完成任务的目标。例如在班克山战役中存在一个要求玩家去刺杀特定对象的的可选择目标。这里所存在的问题便是这将让玩家基于特定方式走向特定区域而不能按照自己的方式走到那里,这在将自由选择和方法看得特别重要的游戏中是不合理的。

当然这里也有一些有效的可选择目标,如在蒙茅斯战役任务中,这里存在一个支线目标让玩家去阻止爱国者被处决。而这一选择便非常适合玩家角色,即Connor不希望自己的盟友在战斗中被处决。这同时也添加了一些挑战元素—-撤退过程拥有时间限制,所以玩家需要确保自己能够即时完成主要目标和支线目标。但这并不能决定游戏风格,因为在这里玩家的目标并不是“使用弓箭杀死刽子手”等等。实际上玩家甚至不能杀死刽子手,只需要去引开他们的注意力让爱国者能够逃走便可。

说到例外,任务Broken Trust便是一个很好的例子,在这里玩家的可选择目标是使用非致命方式去阻止别人进入自己的部落。是的,完成这一目标能够明确玩家的游戏风格,而这同样也符合Connor这一角色,即他不会去杀死自己的亲属。

从根本上来看,我觉得比起完成一个主要目标,创造一个可选择目标的更好方法便是去设计一个支线目标。

ac3(from gamasutra)

ac3(from gamasutra)

4–任务失败不应该是作为一种最后手段

通常情况下你总是希望玩家的死亡是他们在任务中失败的唯一方式。像远离盟友,被发现等等都不会让游戏结束,但却有可能让环境发生改变。如果玩家被发现,那么他所参与的战斗以及处境便会发生改变,或者如果玩家远离了盟友,那么盟友便不会再跟随着玩家。

《刺客信条III》中的一个例子便是Hostile Negotiations任务。在这个暗杀关卡中玩家必须想办法杀死William Johnson。即使玩家被发现也不会输掉任务。即使Johnson看到了玩家也不会输掉任务,而这时候Johnson将拔腿就跑,玩家便需要去追逐他。同样地,即使所有在打斗中出现的当地人都被杀了玩家也不会输掉任务(尽管玩家可能会失去一个可选择的目标)。

在强迫性失败中不应该出现环境的改变。例如盟友死亡或者被发现等等从故事上来看都非可行的。而虽然这并不切实际,但从玩家角度来看他们似乎都能理解为什么会发生这种情况。

5–确保玩家可以在任务中使用更多工具

《刺客信条III》提供给了玩家许多工具,即不管是玩家所拥有的道具还是暗杀的能力。但是这里的问题就在于,在大多数任务中游戏都并未说明玩家可以使用这些工具。

例如游戏中有一个暗杀能力让玩家能够换上保安制服。但问题就在于这一能力是出现游戏的下半部分,并且只有在游戏的支线任务中才能使用。虽然它也能够用于占领堡垒,但是游戏中没有一个主要任务能够让玩家使用这一能力。

而拥有许多很酷的工具使用能力的任务要数The Tea Party了。在这个关卡的最初部分玩家必须清除英国兵。当然玩家可以通过加入团体近战而做到这点,但同时玩家也可以使用烟雾弹或毒镖更轻松地完成这一任务。不过很奇怪的是,玩家在主要故事线前部分所获取的Riot暗杀能力在这里却是无效的,但是来自Boston的能力却是可行的,同时玩家也能使用Marksman去清除这些英国兵。

该关卡的下半部分是基于守护舰船上的区域,玩家可以利用像Bodyguard等战斗暗杀能力去攻击英国兵。我认为这也是游戏中唯一一个我能使用Tripwire Bombs的地方,即玩家可以基于策略将其放置在甲板上去对付这里的英国兵,同时玩家也将能够抽身去对抗该区域其它地方的英国兵。

当提到这一原则的反例时,我并未想到任何能够定义它的方式。因为你不能设计一个让玩家能够随意使用任何工具的任务。但你需要做的便是确保任何特定工具在关卡中拥有足够存在的理由并让玩家能在游戏的特定位置去使用它们。

虽然我们可以从《刺客信条III》中学到许多,但它们同时也要适用于关卡设计中。我所列出的这些内容便是我认为对开放世界任务有帮助的,尽管现在我认为它们同样也适用于游戏中的关卡设计。基于这里所列出的原则,我将通过例子去分析《刺客信条III》中哪些部分拥有正面的开放世界任务设计以及哪些部分拥有负面的开放世界任务世界。

正面任务设计例子:序列6

尽管序列6任务也带有一些问题,但是在可选择的目标方面它的确可出现在开放世界任务设计的正面例子中。

玩家将面对On Johnson’s Trail,在这个任务中他们能够探索波士顿并完成支线目标,即玩家将前往一个充满走私物品的开放禁区并摧毁这些走私物品。玩家可以按照自己喜欢的方式行走于该区域并完成目标。

然后我们将面对The Angry Chef,这里拥有一个保护任务。就像玩家在之前的关卡中所获得的自由那样,这里拥有一些不会破坏他们体验的更加线性化的方法。

然后便是The Tea Party,即一开始玩家需要清除这一区域,然后游戏情节将切换成激烈的战斗/敌人管理中,即玩家需要丢掉茶箱并保护盟友免受英国兵的攻击。虽然这部分和之前的任务一样都不是特别开放,但它们仍然能够在目标环境中提供给玩家各种多样性与选择,而这点恰恰非常重要。

这整个序列是以发生在Hostile Negotiations的经典《刺客信条》开放世界暗杀行动而结束。玩家可以自行选择是前往开始位置还是目标所在位置,去暗杀目标然后逃走。

当玩家在经历这一序列时便会觉得这便是《刺客信条》该呈现的内容,即受故事驱动的开放世界游戏体验。这也是我在整款游戏中最喜欢的序列内容。

负面任务设计例子:序列8

然后便是序列8,即我在整款游戏中最不待见的一个序列。

其中的第一个任务便是Something on the Side,即玩家首次访问纽约的时候,但是你却不能去探索这座城市。只要玩家进入这里便需要遵循同盟走上那条预先设定好的路线(否则只会输掉任务)。在这之后玩家需要基于预设路线瞄准一个目标(否则只会输掉任务)。然后玩家还需要穿越这座城市去追逐另一个目标,否则便只会输掉任务。当玩家抓住了目标,他还是不能去探索这个开放世界,而是将前往监狱。

即玩家将面对Prison Bridewell任务。这是一个漫长又无聊的任务。玩家需要从房间内窃听别人在说什么,然后去睡觉,与一个人进行交谈,与他一起玩棋盘游戏,即这是一个发生在同一个区域的同样差事。在所有麻烦出现后玩家甚至不能逃离这里。

下一个任务是Public Execution。这是一个暗杀任务,但玩家首先需要经过一条线性路径去穿越人群,然后在经历一个过场动画后玩家将冲向目标。当玩家完成任务后便能够离开纽约而瞬间移动到一个完全不同的场所。

这一序列将把玩家带到一个全新的城市但却不让玩家自由探索这个城市,即他们将不断地遵循一个又一个线性路径并被剥夺了所有工具,他们将只能基于一种方式去执行特定任务,在我看来也就是他们不能在一个开放世界环境中处理各种任务。

总之,我从《刺客信条III》中学到的开放世界任务设计的主要原则便是提供给玩家在任务中表达自己想法的能力。最理想的情况便是确保游戏环境足够开放,并添加能够定义其范围的多样性以及有意义的额外限制条件,并且在某种程度上这么做并不会剥夺玩家的自由。

本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转发,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

by Stanislav Costiuc

Assassin’s Creed III was the game that essentially kickstarted me blogging, as I talked about the design of its different levels. That series of posts was pretty popular among the Assassin’s Creed community, though to be honest I tried to reread it and I think it’s just better if I don’t open up my writings from several years ago, because it makes me want to faceplant myself into the table (even if from outside perspective there’s no real reason to). On the plus side, that impulse at least shows that I’ve gained experience over the years.

Now I come back to Assassin’s Creed III in this ongoing blog post series I write based on the whole franchise, and the topic of mission design as well (though not any single mission in particular). I think the game is very suited for studying the principles of open-world level design, and not because it excels at it. When you take the game as a whole – it doesn’t. But it does have plenty of both positive and negative examples of open-world missions, which means their analysis provides very useful learnings that I’m going to share with you right now.

0 – It’s OK to break the rules as long as it makes sense to do so

Before I start, I would like to mention that each learning that I defined is more of a guideline. It’s fine to not follow it, as long as it makes sense for the player. So for each principle I’ll try to find an example when it’s ok to ignore it.

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

1 – Allow the player to reach a destination the way they want

In an open-world game, if you want the player to go from point A to point B, all you have to do is just put a marker on point B and tell to reach it (well, that, and make the world itself have plenty of navigation possibilities). This may seem like something obvious, especially considering that previous Assassin’s Creed games do this a lot, but in Assassin’s Creed III this doesn’t happen all the time.

Let’s take for example the Battle of Bunker Hill mission, where your first objective is to reach Putnam. Not only you have to be close to a random continental soldier who will lead you to the objective, he also won’t move unless you’re on a horse. If you don’t follow those conditions and try to get to Putnam by yourself, then it’s mission failure and restart from checkpoint. This is incredibly restricting. If you want the player go through a certain linear path, then provide a classical linear environment. Like the Tomb levels from previous games do, or in case of Assassin’s Creed III, the Treasure Map levels. Fort Wolcott, for example, is a linear level, and it’s very enjoyable. But open-world environment and strict linear pathways kinda don’t mix.

That said, same Battle of Bunker Hill mission also has an example of where it makes sense to not let the player go the way they want. I’m speaking about the massive British forces and their firing lines that stand between you and your assassination target. They kill you if you get too close. Now in my post from years ago dedicated to this same mission I’ve mentioned the opposite, that the player SHOULD be able to approach them and go through them. But, really, it was mostly the desire to see the event from E3 CGI trailer happening in the game proper.

Technically I don’t think it would be possible as there’s just too many damn NPCs to worry about. In Assassin’s Creed: Unity with the next-gen technology – yeah, but Assassin’s Creed III uses tricks and mirrors to show massive amounts of people. And, purely from the player perspective, it makes sense that a lone person charging straight into an army would die. Even if it’s our awesome Assassin.

2 – Have NPCs adapt to the player, not the other way around
In Assassin’s Creed it happens from time to time that you have to walk to a certain location with a friendly NPC while a conversation is going. Or just to follow an NPC somewhere. And you either follow the pathway of the NPC, or you risk failing the mission. In general, you’d want there just to be a marker like in previous point, and have NPCs that accompany the player adapt to his behavior.

The exception can be the moments when player HAS to see some particular location, like for example a tutorial tour around the home base. Also, of course, if it’s an antagonistic NPC, like a tailing target, then yes, it’s the player who should adapt to the NPC as that’s part of the goal.

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

3 – Optional Objectives should fit with the character and preferably not define playstyle
Ah, optional objectives. Assassin’s Creed III has the whole range of all the different kinds of them.

There are the arbitrary ones that make absolutely no sense. Like in the Conflict Looms mission, there’s an optional objective to air assassinate a grenadier on one of the ships. The tricky part is that you also have an optional objective to not get detected by anybody. So to complete this objective, you need to clear the ship first before setting up an air assassination. But the main objective requires you to light the powder and destroy the ships anyway, so both the detection and air assassination constraints just feel arbitrary.

Then there are ones that conflict with the character. In the mission The Angry Chef we must assassinate in low profile five guards (non-lethal knockouts don’t count). All while Connor tries to tell the angry chef from the mission name that violence is not the answer. Those are two contradicting things. This is made more complicated by the fact that in Assassin’s Creed, optional objectives are justified as achieving ‘full synchronization’, i.e. doing missions the way the ancestor has done them. And Connor comes up as quite a hypocrite when in cutscenes he’s against unnecessary violence, but optional objectives in a number of missions have unnecessary violence. And the Animus justification of ‘this is not necessarily how it happened’ doesn’t work in this case.

There’s also objectives that force the player to go through the mission a certain way. For example, in Battle of Bunker Hill, there’s an optional objective to air assassinate our target. The problem is, this instantly makes the player go through the area a particular way without trying to improvise and find their own path, in a game where freedom of choice and approach are supposed to be important.

There are good optional objectives though as well, like in Battle of Monmouth mission during the retreat section there’s a side objective to prevent patriot executions. This fits the character – Connor wouldn’t let his allies be executed in battle. This adds to the challenge – there’s a time limit for the whole retreat and the player needs to make sure he completes both the main and side objective in time. And it doesn’t define the playstyle, the objective doesn’t say ‘kill executioners with your bow’ or something like that. In fact, the player doesn’t even have to kill the executioners, just distract them so the patriots would escape.

In terms of exceptions, there’s a good example in the mission Broken Trust, where the optional objective is to stop people from your tribe with non-lethal methods. Yes, completing this objective defines a playstyle for the player, but it also is in line with Connor’s character – he wouldn’t kill his kinsmen.

In general, though, I think a good approach to making optional objectives is to design a side goal rather than a method of completing a main goal.

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

4 – Mission Failures should serve as a last resort
Ideally, as much as possible you’d want player’s death to be the only way to fail a certain mission. Getting far from an ally, getting detected, all this shouldn’t lead to a game over state, but to a change of context. If you’re detected then you engage in combat and situation changes (let’s say your objective becomes more heavily guarded), if you’re far from an ally then if he doesn’t follow you then he at least waits for you.

A good example in Assassin’s Creed III is the mission Hostile Negotiations. It’s an assassination level where you have to kill William Johnson. You don’t fail the mission if you get detected on approach (although you do fail the optional objective to get to Johnson undetected). You don’t fail the mission if Johnson sees you, in that situation he will start running away and you have to chase him. Similarly, you don’t fail the mission if all the natives are killed in the fight that might occur (although you will fail an optional objective).

Forced failure should be a situation where change of context is not possible. If an ally is dead, for example. Or, if we talk about detection, if getting detected is not something that is narratively feasible. Perhaps it’s not ideal, but understandable from player perspective why it happens.

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

5 – Make sure the missions are designed to utilize as many tools as possible
Assassin’s Creed III provides quite a lot of tools for the player, both in terms of items that you have, as well as in terms of Assassin Recruit abilities. The problem is, most of the time missions don’t account for those tools to be utilized.

For example, there’s an Assassin Recruit ability which makes them dressed in guard uniform and you fake imprisonment. It’s a cool play on the Monk/Courtesan blending from previous games. The problem is, this ability, introduced in the second half of the game, is effectively used only in the side mission where you get it. After that, well… it can still be used for capturing Forts, but none of the main missions have any instance where it could be useful, so it just… sits there as an ability.

A mission which does have pretty cool tool usage capabilities is The Tea Party. In the first part of the level you have to clear the area from Redcoats. You can of course do this simply by engaging into group close combat, but you also can use smoke bombs and poison darts to make it all easier. Weirdly enough, the Riot assassin recruit ability that you get slightly earlier in the main storyline is deactivated here, but abilities from other Boston recruits are present, and the Marksman can be used to help you clear the area.

The second half of the level is based on defending the area on ships while your allies throw away tea, and you can utilize combat Assassin recruit capabilities like Bodyguard or calling to assassinate attacking redcoats. This is also I think the only mission in the game where I used Tripwire Bombs, as you can strategically place them on boarding planks so it’d take care of boarding redcoats while you’re fighting on another side of the area.

When it comes to exceptions for this principle, there’s no real way to define it I think. Because you can’t design every mission to utilize absolutely every tool under player’s disposal. But what you should do, I think, is try to make sure that any given tool has enough reasons created in levels to be utilized over the course of the game.

Now, of course, there are more learnings that can be taken from Assassin’s Creed III, but they’d also apply to level design in general I think. The ones I’ve listed is something that I feel is important for open-world missions in particular, though now that I think about it they also can apply to level design in games in general. With these principles listed, I want to do a quick rundown of which section of Assassin’s Creed III has positive open-world mission design and examples, and which section has negative.

Open-world mission design learnings from Assassin’s Creed III

Positive Mission Design examples: Sequence 6

While Sequence 6 missions do have a few blunders, mainly in the optional objectives department, they’re a very good positive example of open-world mission design.

You have On Johnson’s Trail, which is a mission that allows you to explore Boston and complete side objectives as you go to an open restricted area with smuggled cargo that you need to destroy, and you travel around the area and complete the objective as you see fit.

Then you have The Angry Chef which is a nice follow and protect mission. As you were provided quite a bit of freedom in the previous level, the more linear approach does not ruin the experience.

After that goes The Tea Party, starting out as an open-ended clear out the area scenario, and then transitions into an intense combat/enemy management situation where you have to throw out tea crates while protecting your allies from oncoming British soldiers. This and the previous mission are less open-ended overall, but they still provide variety and choices in the context of their goals, which is important.

This whole sequence concludes with a classic Assassin’s Creed open-world assassination in Hostile Negotiations. You have your starting location and the location of your target, you get there whichever way you want, assassinate the target, and escape.

You play through this sequence, and you feel it – this is what Assassin’s Creed is about, a narrative-driven open-world experience. It’s thoroughly enjoyable and probably my favourite sequence of the whole game.

Negative Mission Design examples: Sequence 8

Then we have Sequence 8, which I would call my least favourite sequence of the whole game.

The first mission is Something on the Side, which marks your absolute first visit to New York, only you can’t explore the city at all. As soon as you enter it, you have to follow your ally throughout a predetermined path (or fail the mission). Straight after that, you have to tail a target on a predetermined path (or fail the mission). And then you have to chase another target through the city, or, well, fail the mission. And after you catch the target, you don’t get to explore the open-world, you get to prison.

Which is the focus of the Prison Bridewell mission. It’s long, it’s boring. You have to eavesdrop from inside your cell, then go to sleep, then go to talk to a guy, then play a board game with him, and it’s an errand after an errand in the same area. And you don’t even get to escape after all the trouble.

The next mission is Public Execution. Which is an assassination mission, but it consists of a linear pathway through the crowd that you have to go to first, and then after a cutscene, a quick charge and run to your target. And straight after you complete the mission, you get teleported to an absolutely different location entirely, out of New York.

This sequence introduces you to a whole new city but doesn’t let you explore an inch of it, it’s a linear pathway after linear pathway after linear pathway, you get robbed of all your tools and mostly have just one way to do certain thing or another, and in my opinion, an example of how not to handle missions in an open-world environment.

In conclusion, the overall main principle of open-world mission design that I’ve learned from Assassin’s Creed III, is to provide players the ability to express themselves within the context of the mission. Ideally that context is as open-ended as possible, but to add variety you can define its limits and other additional restrictions where it makes sense and in a way that doesn’t fully rob the players of their agency.(source:gamasutra)

 


上一篇:

下一篇: